Disaster Relief and Observer Funds to Help Groundfishery

by Laurie Schreiber

ROCKPORT – The New England groundfish fishery will receive nearly $33 million in disaster relief, as part of a $75 million package approved by Congress in February.

A fisherman asks NOAA leaders for their perspective on the effect of radiation from Fukushima on marine resources. “We’re curious, as fishermen, what is being done to look into that.” Laurie Schreiber photo

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is working with eligible states to allocate the funding.

“We know it doesn’t address all the harm in the region, but it is something we can begin to work with, to come up with some strategies to minimize some of the effects of the ongoing disaster,” newly appointed NMFS chief Eileen Sobeck told folks during an open forum with fisheries leadership from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) at the recent Maine Fishermen’s Forum.

John Bullard, head of NMFS’ Greater Atlantic Regional Fishery Office (GARFO, formerly the Northeast Regional Office), said his agency is working with state officials, representatives of the fishing industry, and members of Congress to work out a plan on how to spend the money.

“If you have suggestions on what is needed to best assist the groundfish industry, direct those ideas to me or Terry Stockwell or Pat Keliher,” Bullard said. In 2012, the Secretary of Commerce declared a fishery disaster in anticipation of significant quota cuts for key groundfish stocks in the 2013 fishing year.“We want to move quickly to get this money out to those with immediate needs, but also we want to make wise decisions.”

According to NOAA, recipients of the funding have broad latitude to determine the best use of the funds to meet the needs of their local businesses and communities. Funds can be used for activities that, “restore the fishery or prevent a similar failure in the future, and to assist a fishing community affected by such failure.”

Funds are allocated through a grant process. NMFS will work with people making out grant applications and spending plans. Once an application and plan is complete, there is generally a two- to three-month review process before the funds are made available to the recipient.

Groundfishermen will also see some relief with NMFS’ decision to once again fund observer costs for the coming year. This comes at a time when fishery managers are working on a plan to require fishermen to contribute to monitoring costs.“Our agency is able to fully fund observer coverage for this fishing year,” said Sobeck. “It’s not permanent. It’s not a matter of finding hidden money. It’s a matter of re-prioritizing. It’s been a tough budget year. We’re feeling that at the federal level.”

The observer program is managed by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) in Woods Hole, Mass. NEFSC director Bill Karp explained the agency conducts observer training and preparation, manages data, and liaisons with the fishing industry for deployment.

“We have, in a general sense, two tiers of observer coverage,” Karp said. Standard bycatch reporting methodology uses fully trained, broad-based observers across many, but not all, fisheries to provide NEFSC with a basis for estimating discard fishery-by-fishery. Coverage is at the 6-8 percent level. Funding for that level of coverage will always be covered by NMFS, he said.

Eileen Sobeck took the helm at NMFS on Jan. 27 as assistant administrator for NOAA Fisheries. She takes the helm from Samuel Rauch, acting assistant administrator since 2012. Laurie Schreiber photo

Then there’s coverage required to support science and management information needs for specific fisheries. For example, additional monitoring was required for the implementation of the groundfish sectors.“In those cases, we have at-sea monitors,” Karp said. “That’s slightly different. There’s a reduced suite of duties and reduced training requirements, and much more focused responsibilities for monitoring and accounting for the harvest.”

At some point, he said, it was expected that the industry would be covering the at-sea costs of the at-sea monitors. “We have, over the last several years, done the best we can in finding enough federal funds to cover those costs, and fortunately have been successful,” Karp said. “Obviously, that’s a concern because of the economic pressure the industry is under. And we will continue to do the best we can to do that. But we’re in a zero-sum game with regard to the federal budget. So we cannot guarantee that, into the future, we will always be able to cover those costs.”

“What about the economics?” asked one man. “On the one hand, we want fisheries to absorb more of the costs. On the other hand, the industry is failing. Is there any economic analysis as to what the industry can bear? Another man wanted to know if there will be observer coverage for the offshore lobster fishery.

“It’s not a fishery that’s covered by the observer program,” replied Karp. “As we move forward, we’re looking at changes to the standardized bycatch reporting methodology, which will result in bringing observer coverage to many fisheries that aren’t currently covered.”

Folks queried the officials on a variety of topics. One man wanted to know about the future of fisheries on the West Coast in light of the nuclear disaster at Fukushima.

“There are a lot of sick species out there,” he said. “We’re curious, as fishermen, what is being done to look into that.”

“There is a certain degree of natural background radiation that exists in fish everywhere,” replied NMFS deputy chief Sam Rauch. “When Fukushima happened, there was a big concern, particularly in highly migratory fish, that there would be elevated levels. The Japanese did see elevated levels, right in the vicinity. We tried to trace that in the fish products coming in, that we were catching, and in imports. We saw traces, but far below levels of concern. So there was an effect, but below human health levels of concern. But we continue to monitor that.”

Another man wanted to know NOAA’s plans for ecosystem-based fishery management.

“Nationally, for a long time, NOAA has been a supporter of ecosystem-based management,” said Rauch. “The concept is one we’ve embraced virtually nationwide – the idea that, when you manage fisheries, you have to understand the total input. For example, for forage fish, you don’t just maximize production of forage fish, but you understand that this is a bedrock species for the entire ecosystem, and what you do with one species will affect others. So in concept, NOAA and all the councils around the country buy into that concept. There’s difficulty translating that into reality though, because to manage for that, you have to understand the dynamic equations – what it means when you harvest one species, how that affects others. We can theorize what that means, but the mathematical equations are often a knowledge gap. We do invest in those ecosystem-based research problems. We strongly support those kinds of plans that look at impacts holistically.”